Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Holographic universe is it real

  1. Jan 30, 2017 #1

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I am not a proponent of holographic principle, I believe the universe is infinite, one will start off and not come back to the same starting point , my question is how popular is the holographic principle? and why?
    Not that my views mean any thing.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170130083231.htm


    A UK, Canadian and Italian study has provided what researchers believe is the first observational evidence that our universe could be a vast and complex hologram. Theoretical physicists and astrophysicists, investigating irregularities in the cosmic microwave background (the 'afterglow' of the Big Bang), have found there is substantial evidence supporting a holographic explanation of the universe -- in fact, as much as there is for the traditional explanation of these irregularities using the theory of cosmic inflation.

    Thank you in advance.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 30, 2017 #2

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Personally, I think it's nonsense. Susskind, who is a big believer, has forgotten more physics than I'll ever know, but I STILL don't believe it.
     
  4. Jan 30, 2017 #3

    haushofer

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    In cosmology we consider de Sitter backgrounds. It is, as I understand it, far from clear that holography can be applied to these backgrounds. But holography itself is just a mathematical conjecture, and there are good reasons to believe it is "real". To which extent, that is the real question.
     
  5. Jan 30, 2017 #4

    Grinkle

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    In what ways might a holographic model be different from a non-holographic model? I thought they were alternative approaches to describing the same 3-space, and either approach is valid.
     
  6. Jan 30, 2017 #5

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hi Grinle, I do not know how a 2d space can be the same as a 3d space, may be you can clue me in.
     
  7. Jan 30, 2017 #6

    Grinkle

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    My understanding is that the information content is the same in either representation. That is why I thought they are alternative approaches to describing the same observable universe.

    A 2-d spherical surface is obviously different than a 3-d volume. Perhaps mistakenly, I wasn't taking the holographic principle to literally be saying that the only 'real' stuff in the universe is physically located on a 2-d spherical surface.
     
  8. Jan 30, 2017 #7
    Saw this story on USA Today of all places. More pop sci getting ahead of itself?
     
  9. Jan 30, 2017 #8

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, there is still this true statement from @phinds
    which is probably true for many of us. I always have to think about Stokes if it comes to the holographic principle. I searched the internet therefore as I saw this thread, and apparently I'm not the first one with this thought. Most think that this would be a bit too far fetched, but it doesn't convince me. Maybe it's really this underlying principle, that the borders contain the answers.
     
  10. Jan 30, 2017 #9

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    That's the basic idea, yes. But notice that that means the 3-d space cannot contain all of the information that you would "naively" expect a 3-d volume to contain--because it can't contain any more information than can be stored on its boundary. So something counterintuitive is going on no matter how you look at it.

    That depends on whose version of the principle you look at. Some of the claims in the literature pretty much amount to this. But this is still an open area of research, so the answer to most of the interesting questions at this point is "we don't know".
     
  11. Jan 30, 2017 #10
    Sorry if this is a dumb question, I'm trying to wrap my mind around this holographic principle: are you referring to the limit of information density? I'm thinking the 3d boundary only contains the information of the 3d volume for its reference frame, similar to the CMB map, an idea that doesn't seem novel; I'm sure I'm missing something here though.
     
  12. Jan 30, 2017 #11

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm referring to the fact that, if the holographic principle is true, the information that can be stored in a 3-d volume scales as the area of its boundary, i.e., as the 2/3 power of the volume; whereas our "naive" expectation is that it should scale as the volume.

    The boundary of a 3d volume is a 2d surface.
     
  13. Jan 31, 2017 #12

    Grinkle

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Taking some liberties with the B level the thread was opened with, the pop-sci reasoning I recall for arriving at the maximum information density goes like -

    Associate a bit of information with a particle state, and note that when particle density is at the point where a singularity would form, maximum information density is reached and the resulting event horizon has as many plank areas as there are possible particle states of the particles in the hypothesized singularity.

    Is that nonsense? If its not nonsense, it seems to me that this is an interesting relationship arising from our model of black holes, not something that that depends on the location of the particles to be correct. Its just noticing that number of plank areas on the surface of an event horizon very oddly and interestingly imo corresponds to the number of possible particle states of the particles inside the singularity.

    I get that in the link @wolram put in the OP the discussion is about where the particles are and not just the accounting I am asking about.
     
  14. Jan 31, 2017 #13

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    As I see it, the question is not so much about nonsense, but intuition. And the holographic principle is similar counter-intuitive as space-filling curves are.
     
  15. Jan 31, 2017 #14

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Is not a good source for PF discussion.

    Looks like it to me.
     
  16. Jan 31, 2017 #15

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    For much better non pop-sci sources about the Bekenstein bound, which is the name for the "information density" limit under discussion (i.e., based on the area of the boundary instead of the volume), see the references here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound
     
  17. Jan 31, 2017 #16

    Grinkle

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thanks, Peter.
     
  18. Feb 1, 2017 #17

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thank you for all the replies and links guys, very interesting.
     
  19. Feb 1, 2017 #18

    1oldman2

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Noteworthy. :smile:
    http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2017/01/holographic-universe.page
    "A UK, Canadian and Italian study has provided what researchers believe is the first observational evidence that our universe could be a vast and complex hologram."

    Professor Kostas Skenderis of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Southampton explains: "Imagine that everything you see, feel and hear in three dimensions (and your perception of time) in fact emanates from a flat two-dimensional field. The idea is similar to that of ordinary holograms where a three-dimensional image is encoded in a two-dimensional surface, such as in the hologram on a credit card. However, this time, the entire universe is encoded!"
     
  20. Feb 2, 2017 #19

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    While the 2d v 3d argument is valid, you still cannot derive any useful information from a hologram without a beam from other than a point source.
     
  21. Feb 2, 2017 #20
    I've tried finding the arxiv on 1Oldman2 post which I find interesting without the pop media explanations. If anyone has a link to it I would be interested in studying the details under the mathematical regime.

    Quite frankly any heuristic explanation of the holographic principle simply doesn't properly cover it. I look at the required dimensions under the basis of how many independant variables (degrees of freedom) is required to define a system or system state. So quite frankly I would like to see how the dimensions from 2d to 3d are defined in the above terms including the symmetry reductions to 2d. In particular the reduction of the effective degrees of freedom which the holographic principle answers this question in terms of the area of surfaces in spacetime.

    If anyone has the arxiv in regards to the links in this thread I would like to examine how the degrees of freedom is treated
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2017
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted